Get out of here. Please. Yesterday will do fine. Your command at Justice became intolerable in your first big public statement, four and a half years ago, the one in which you laid out your hateful view of American society:

…in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards. Though race related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.

You were telling us two things: First, you intended to inflame political racial conflict in the United States. Despite some boilerplate language about overcoming racism and becoming “one nation,” your speech demanded that we focus on our alleged obsession with racial differences. You said, quite rightly, that it was intellectually misguided to talk about “black history” as something separate from “American history,” but you didn’t mean it. Indeed, you insisted that Black History Month be used to do just that — to treat black Americans separately from the others. And although you conceded that America in the 1960s was superficially unrecognizable compared to America in 2009, the differences were often trivial and deceptive:

though the world in which we now live is fundamentally different than that which existed then, this nation has still not come to grips with its racial past nor has it been willing to contemplate, in a truly meaningful way, the diverse future it is fated to have. To our detriment, this is typical of the way in which this nation deals with issues of race…

outside the workplace the situation is even more bleak in that there is almost no significant interaction between us. On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago.

Second, as the last sentence above so clearly proves, you were either ignorant of, or had chosen to ignore, what had happened in America from the sixties to 2009. We had largely moved beyond thinking of ourselves in black or white terms. Indeed, our society had changed so much that the very concept of “race” was overtaken by events. By 2010, ten percent of marriages were between people of different “races,” long term “mixed relationships” were twice as numerous, and fully 85 percent of those polled by Pew said they thought the increase (the rate had tripled in a decade) was either a good thing, or not particularly significant. It wasn’t a big deal, it was what we knew we were, a society in which “race” was less and less important, as it should be. Only a small fraction thought it was bad news.

Maybe it’s different at the pinnacle of American society, where you have long lived and worked. But down here in the middle class, we spend our weekends with the same people we see during the work week. And it’s not racially determined. Surveys invariably show that we are the least racist society in the world, along with the other members of the Anglosphere and the Latin countries (something you might bear in mind the next time it occurs to you to incite venom against some “white Latino”). The society you’re talking about is not American, it’s Asian, or North African, or Arab. We’re the best in the world. You should know that and say it proudly.

But that’s not what you’re about. You insist that Americans outside the workplace are basically the same racists as half a century before. You may actually believe it, and you certainly want to use it , so you say it. I don’t want to guess why you say it, I just want it to stop. It’ll be overwhelmed by reality in short order, in any event; what are you going to do with the children of mixed marriages? What “race” will define them in your view of mankind? Are you going to use the Nazi definitions of mixed race? Or will you tailor your rhetoric to your audience (whites mostly think that Obama is “mixed race,” while a majority of blacks think he’s one of them)?

Throughout your tenure, you’ve acted as if one of your primary tasks were the protection of blacks against criticism and particularly against legal action, regardless of the facts in the cases. I found the whitewash of the New Black Panthers‘ actions at a polling place in Philly during the 2008 elections particularly egregious, as did several Justice Department officials in the Civil Rights Division. I’d be inclined to overlook it — a single event, after all — save for two things. First, the behavior of your underlings, and second, the Panthers just showed up again in Florida in a “race case.”

One of your cohorts at Justice seem to have dissembled about the whitewash. Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez swore that there was no political element involved in Justice’s decision, but a federal district judge found otherwise:

political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision.

So your political cohorts were involved in the whitewash, and denied it in sworn testimony (and Thomas Perez, who provided the false denial, is now up for secretary of Labor). It’s not the only case that suggests active sympathy for the Panthers.

As we have recently learned, Justice quietly helped organize the Florida demonstrations that clearly caused local legal authorities to reverse their original judgment, and bring charges in the now (and improperly) racially defined Zimmerman case. Those demonstrations included the New Black Panthers.

No one could possibly characterize your race-driven proclivities better than you did, when you said, “I am the black U.S. attorney…there’s a common cause that bonds the black U.S. attorney with the black criminal…”

This is not what we need from the nation’s top legal officer. It may well be a candid expression of your deepest passions, but it’s wrong for the attorney general, or any legal official of the American government. We need an indisputably even-handed, fair-minded and color-blind AG. You’re not that man. You’re pushing an agenda that most Americans don’t like, based on a racially driven view of American history and society that is false, demeaning to most of us, and a threat — whether deliberate or unanticipated — to our continued progress. We don’t need any more of this.

Eric Holder is the worst Attorney General since Wilson's infamous A. Mitchell Palmer. His unwillingness to enforce voting rights law without regard to skin color is a disgrace to the office and an affront to our principles of justice. He's a racialist who sees civil rights laws as a form of "payback," not a protection of the rights of all. Worse, people have died because of his bungling disregard for the rule of law. Forget resignation or firing: I want him impeached and tried before the public.

He should have been gone when he refused the black panther case after the =2008 ekection. There are laws governing activity at polling places and he allowed them to be broken. That was only one of his failueres.

Eric Holder & Hussein Obama have done a tremendous injustice to the Black community. Actually to the entire Black race in general. I myself had for several elections aspired for a Black president thinking that such a person would have the history and resultant character that he would have a heart for ALL people, someone who was color blind. It is so unfortunate that the first Black president turned out to be the president that did all he could to destroy the very country that facilitated his rising to such a prestigous position as president.It speaks of nothing else but treason. And since we are in a time of war.........I'll let you finish that sentence.

why is eric holder still around ? he's a bum and a liar and believes in this critical race theory ! if he doesn't quit , then potus needs to fire him . I think holder will be canned before the end of September ... I believe i'm right !!!!!

I am hoping that the US is more robust than Russia between 1905 and 1917, because those close to the top in either case are simply repugnant and reprehensible scoundrels, scalawags, deformed souls, and similar ilk.

I am so tired of big headlines of wrongdoing and NOTHING happening! Holder holds the title of Contempt of Congress and yet he goes about his happy way trashing the American legal system. On top of that he is wine and dined on taxpayers dollars to the tune of $1.2 million+. Where is the ramifications on lying and stonewalling investigations!! Just dam* frustrating.

No, he is the worst AG EVER! No one is even close. In any other country o & his minions would have been thrown out for good. Why not in the US? Well, as H.L. Menken once said, "never underestimate the stupidity of the American people." Just ONE scandal like fast & furious, the IRS, NSA, Lybia, Solyandra, etc. would be enough to end the career of any other pol or prez. Why not o? He is black liberal democrat. He could nuke the South, sell CA to the Red Chinese or have sex with a pig in Times Square & he'd get a complete pass. Everything is race with these people. They have destroyed America.

Unreal that I would leave off"out" off from the word "with" thus changing the entire meaning of the thought. Obviously, I do NOT wish for violence and destruction but I fear it is not wholly avoidable. We will soon see when Zimmerman is acquitted.

There are only two things that offer any promise of reining in the Soros Junta's lawlessness: defunding offending agencies thus provoking a true shutdown and prosecution of federal officials under state laws.

If we're going to have another debt limit and continuing resolution fight, sooner is better than later and yesterday would have been good. Provoking or accepting that fight risks the seat of practically every Republican in Congress, risks giving the HOR to the Communists, excuse me, Democrats in '14, and, in reality, risks the actual end of the Republic. The Republicans will ABSOLUTELY lose that fight if they try to run the messaging from DC. If they want to cut off the Communists', excuse me, Democrats, money, they need to reject the debt limit increase, reject any CRs, and I mean ANY, even DoD - the military isn't being used for anything in the US' interest anymore anyway, adjourn the HoR, and go home. The members have some chance at getting out their message using local and regional media; they have no chance of getting out their message from DC. This is the Queen's Gambit; if you lose, you certainly lose the House, the Senate stays Communist, and the Presidency goes to Clinton, the Soros annointee. You may lose the whole notion of a Constitutional republican democracy. Choose well.

There is probably potential for some sort of state law prosecution of federal officials in F&F and the IRS scandal, maybe the NSA matter as well. It would be hard to get far enough up the org chart to actually damage the Junta or even tie things directly to it, but the persistent nagging injury might take a toll. The Governor who does this or allows his/her AG to do it faces the absolute certainty of an invasion by the the federal government's regulatory agencies and law enforcement and probably having most of his/her state's federal funds cut off. The risk is you hand your state to the Communists, excuse me, Democrats. Choose well.

If I were planning a true confrontation over funding the government, I would adjourn the HoR and set up a Provisional Assembly in a safely Red state whose governor is committed to using state law enforcement or even National Guard to protect the Assembly from federal forces. That Provisional Assembly can be the voice of the "loyal" opposition. If you want to visualize the beginnings of a civil war, let the US try to federalize a state's National Guard over the objections of the state's governor. Wait for the US to try to arrest said state governor over the opposition of that state's law enforcement. Enough of a vision of Hell for you?